Connect with us

Business

JPMorgan Chase is rolling out a new fee structure that could ‘cripple’ crypto and fintech startups, executives warn

Published

on



When JPMorgan Chase told fintechs last month that it planned to charge them for accessing its customer banking account data, it sent shockwaves through corners of the financial industry. According to four industry executives, the move is a blow to the fintech sector and could prove devastating to early-stage startups, including those in the crypto industry. Analysts, however, think mature fintechs like PayPal and Block will likely not feel much consequence from this fee change.

Under the plan, every time a consumer moves money from JPMorgan Chase to a crypto account or a third-party service like Venmo, the bank could charge the data aggregator a fee. This would make it economically impossible for many consumers to use stablecoins and crypto, according to three industry executives, who declined to speak on the record for fear of retaliation. “This would cripple the crypto industry,” one of the execs said.

The fees are also expected to be onerous for many early-stage fintechs, executives told Fortune. One fintech estimated that the fees to access JPMorgan’s API would be more than the revenue the company made in its 10-year existence. “This would put everyone out of business…It would require everyone to raise prices by 1000% to cover [the cost],” the first exec said.

Crypto firms and fintechs typically use aggregators, like Plaid or MX, to access customer accounts at major financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase. Up to now, the banks have not charged the aggregators, but this may change.

“The JPMorgan fees make it impossible to serve Chase customers if you are a small company,” a second executive said.

Alex Rampell, a general partner at venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, said in a post on X Wednesday that JPMorgan’s plans to charge fintechs for customer data “isn’t about a new revenue stream. It’s about strangling the competition. And if they get away with this, every bank will follow.”

JPMorgan Chase is an $800 billion company, said Rampell, who is a cofounder of Affirm, a buy-now-pay-later lender. JPMorgan’s new fee plan could make it very expensive to invest in crypto. “If it suddenly cost $10 to move $100 into a Coinbase or Robinhood account, fewer people might do it,” he said. JPMorgan and other banks could also “refuse to let consumers connect their own freely chosen crypto and fintech apps to their bank account,” he said.

Arjun Sethi, co-CEO of Kraken, one of the largest crypto exchanges in the U.S., said JPMorgan is making a “calculated move” with its plans to charge fees. The nation’s biggest bank is “asserting ownership” over data generated by consumers and stored in infrastructure controlled by JPMorgan, Sethi said in a post Tuesday on X.

“This is not a technical innovation. It is a toll,” Sethi said. “And once data becomes a revenue stream for the infrastructure provider, the incentive is to fragment it, lock it in, and sell it at margin.”

JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank by assets, has 91 million consumer accounts spread across its different segments. The bank likely represents about 20 million checking accounts in the U.S., according to a July 14 research note from Harshita Rawat, a Bernstein research analyst. 

JPMorgan has already informed the aggregators that it would start charging fees for accessing its customers’ bank account information, Bloomberg reported, but it’s unclear how much the bank plans to charge.

“We’ve invested significant resources creating a valuable and secure system that protects customer data. We’ve had productive conversations and are working with the entire ecosystem to ensure we’re all making the necessary investments in the infrastructure that keeps our customers safe,” JPMorgan Chase said in a statement Wednesday.

When it comes to more mature fintechs like PayPal and Block, which owns Cash App, analysts believe they will face little impact from the fees since they already negotiated agreements on fees with the largest banks, including JPMorgan “on a multi-faceted basis,” including cards, other relationships, and processing, said Bernstein’s Rawat. “PayPal and Block also likely have limited (or manageable) exposure to data aggregators,” Rawat said. (Aggregators typically provide technology, such as APIs, that let consumers connect their financial accounts to an app or service.)

Some think this positive view is premature. Much depends on the size of the fees, the second executive said. “The impact could be pretty immense,” they said.

Dimon wary of fintechs

Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s CEO and the most influential banker on Wall Street, has long taken a dim view of fintechs. During an analyst call in January 2021, Dimon said incumbent banks should be “scared sh**less” of the growing competition posed by fintechs. Dimon then said that he expected “very, very tough, brutal competition in the next 10 years” from fintechs. 

“I expect to win, so help me God,” Dimon said during the call. At the time, Dimon singled out Plaid—a widely used service that helps consumers quickly connect apps like Venmo to their bank account—saying there are “people who improperly use data that’s been given to them, like Plaid.”

Dimon, in his annual shareholder letter that was published in April, warned that a battle with third party aggregators was “brewing.” JPMorgan Chase has no problem sharing customer data but only if it’s done properly, Dimon said in the letter. Customers should authorize any sharing of their data, he said. They should also know what data is shared and when and how it is used. “Third parties want full access to banks’ customer data so they can exploit it for their own purposes and profits,” said Dimon, who thinks third parties should pay for accessing the banking system and payment rails.

He furthered this argument during JPMorgan’s earnings call Tuesday. Customers have the right to share their information, but there should be a time limit on the data, he said. The data should not be remarketed or resold to third parties, he said. “And then the payment, it just costs a lot of money to set up the APIs and stuff like that to run the system protection. So, we just think it should be done and done right. And that’s the main part. It’s not like you can’t do it,” Dimon said.

Skeptics, however, doubt that protecting consumers is JPMorgan’s prime concern when it comes to fintechs. Instead, they view charging fees for data as a way for large banks to build a moat around their products and services, making it hard for consumers to access competing services, according to the executives. “Banks have invested a lot of money to build their offerings. But fintechs have invested a lot of money to build their technology,” a third exec said.

The fees will raise costs for consumers, limit their financial choices while jeopardizing innovation, a second executive said. “This will kill innovation and consumer choice,” a fourth person said.

Aggregators like Plaid, Yodlee, Finicity, and MX will initially feel the brunt of these changes. Consumers rely on aggregators to share their data and connect their accounts with fintech apps. Plaid, for example, has 7,000 customers, including Robinhood, Citi, Rocket Mortgage, and Shopify. Banks and fintechs use Plaid’s APIs to connect to more than 12,000 financial institutions, including JPMorgan Chase and PayPal.

In 2018, Plaid signed an agreement with JPMorgan allowing it access Chase’s customer information through a secure API connection. Since then, JPMorgan Chase has never charged Plaid for its consumer data, one person familiar with the situation told Fortune. Plaid, however, does pay to manage the security, technology and compliance associated with maintaining the API integrations. JPMorgan also reviews and vets customers as they join Plaid’s network, and it conducts routine security reviews, the person said.

In its contracts with aggregators, JPMorgan has always reserved the right to charge for the data, a second person familiar with the situation said. The bank also wants to encourage more responsible data access practices. Each month, JPMorgan typically receives 2 billion data calls—requests for access to customer data—from aggregators. But in 90% of these data pulls, the customer isn’t actively seeking the data, the second person said.

About three weeks ago, in late June, JPMorgan informed all its aggregator customers who use its API that they would need to start paying. The first fees would start triggering at the end of August, the person said. Aggregators are expected to pass on the costs—whatever they are—to consumers.  

Other banks are expected to follow JPMorgan’s lead. PNC Financial Services, one of the nation’s largest consumer banks, is also considering charging fintechs for accessing its customer data. “I applaud what JP did,” said Bill Demchak, PNC’s chairman and CEO, during an earnings call Wednesday.

“I think [JPMorgan is] exactly right. I think there’s a big cost to keeping this data secure and producing it in a form that’s readable for our clients. So we’re, you know, we’re thinking about it,” said Demchak, who said PNC was “in discussions.”

The status of other banks is not clear. Citi is one of the nation’s biggest consumer banks. It has over 200 million customer accounts globally. As of June 2, Bank of America served 69 million U.S. consumer and small business clients. Wells Fargo is also a large consumer bank but doesn’t disclose information on its accounts. Citi declined to comment, while BofA and Wells could not be reached for comment.

The end of “open banking”?

It is not coincidental that the change to JPMorgan’s fees comes as the CFPB’s open banking rule remains unresolved. The law was first initiated during President Trump’s first term. It was finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, in October, during the waning days of the Biden administration. The Open Banking rule, or Rule 1033, makes it easier for consumers to switch between financial service providers. It also requires banks to share the data with other lenders or financial services providers for free. On the same day that the agency issued the rule, two bank lobby groups, the Bank Policy Institute and the Kentucky Bankers Association, sued the CFPB, claiming the regulator overstepped its authority. (Dimon is chairman of the Bank Policy Institute.)

The CFPB is charged with protecting consumers in the financial marketplace. Now overseen by the Trump administration, the agency filed a motion for summary judgment in May, asking a Kentucky district court to vacate the open banking rule. The CFPB said the rule was “unlawful and should be set aside,” according to a court filing.

JPMorgan Chase is exploiting regulatory uncertainty to levy a “punitive tax on competitive offerings,” said Steve Boms, executive director of the Financial Data and Technology Association, or FDATA, a trade association that represents financial services companies. “This is a blatant effort to curtail innovation and undermine a stronger American financial system,” Boms said in a statement.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Senate Dems’ plan to fix Obamacare premiums adds nearly $300 billion to deficit, CRFB says

Published

on



The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.

With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.

“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.

The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.

CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.

Reversing recent guardrails

MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.

The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.

The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.

MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.

The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.

“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.

The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.​

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of ThronesFriends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

on



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.